JRAGOSTA just "bought" one for his daughter. He says it is a good phone.
But he also thinks that the OS should be as advanced as the phones which cost money. IMO, with the mobile space changing so rapidly, it was a huge mistake to buy old tech.
If he got it for free, he can sell it on eBay and use the cash to get a Nexus One on the Google website.
Given how much of a die-hard Apple fan he is, I am surprised he let his daugther suffer the torment of using something not made by Apple. He obviously does not care about his kids. Good parents don't let their kids use Android.
Surprised he didn't give her his old iPhone and get himself a new one. I thought that's what all good Apple-loving parents do.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
With no multitasking and (IIRC) a locked-in app store, I have no interest in WinPhone 7.
I don't think even Google and the OHA have to worry about WinPho 7. There's no way the OEMs are going to put in a ton of effort on an OS that they have to pay to license vs. working on the platform Google licenses to them for free.
HTC might be the exception because they might need to work on WinPho 7 to keep that exemption they got from MS patent suits.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
I don't think even Google and the OHA have to worry about WinPho 7. There's no way the OEMs are going to put in a ton of effort on an OS that they have to pay to license vs. working on the platform Google licenses to them for free.
.
Lots of people predict that it will quickly become popular, perhaps with RIM switchers in the enterprise.
Given how much of a die-hard Apple fan he is, I am surprised he let his daugther suffer the torment of using something not made by Apple. He obviously does not care about his kids. Good parents don't let their kids use Android.
Surprised he didn't give her his old iPhone and get himself a new one. I thought that's what all good Apple-loving parents do.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
Or maybe I simply believe in letting people choose the tools they will use - and always have. She does more texting than anything else and likes the layout of the backflip for texting. Her phone, her choice-your inane personal attacks aside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Given that "fact", how do you explain Android's explosive market growth? All sold to the identified subset of geeks? I don't think that there are very many of those, and I think you agree with that.
So given that there are very few "my phone has more features than your phone" geeks out there, how are Android phones selling so fast?
In the case of Sprint, they got fantastic growth by lying about their sales figures.
As for the rest, there are a number of explanations:
1. BOGO has contributed a good number, along with very aggressive pricing for non-BOGO phones.
2. There was a pent-up demand. There are a lot of Apple haters who simply would never buy an Apple product no matter what and they finally have a decent selection of phones to choose from, so it's not surprising that there would be a surge.
3. The entire concept of "Android phones" vs. "iPhones" is misleading. That's like saying "all Korean cars added together outsold Honda so Honda is a fail". If you want to lump sales by OS, add in the iPod Touch, as well.
4. Android has been hyped as an 'iphone killer' for so long that some people are believing it with no justification. A lot of those Android phones have disappointed owners - and so share growth will taper off. iPhone, OTOH, continues to be the leader in customer satisfaction by a wide margin - which leads to repeat customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Why did she get that phone when the Nexus One is available for ATT?
The Backflip is not a phone I would expect much from. It got lousy reviews, and it is sold with an old OS.
But it is cheap, and my guess is that in the budget category, pepole care less about having the absolute state of the art. Their intent is to compromise, and not to get the latest and greatest.
Actually, the Backflip's reviews weren't that bad and most of the complaints aren't things she cares about. It was also priced aggressively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daving313
Why do people even bring up the Backflip? The phone is free with a new 2-year contract. You can even get the Droid for free after a new contract on Wirefly. The cheapest iPhone is an 8GB 3G refurb for 49.99 (hardware which is 2 years old).
I think comparing to the Droid X hardware (since it's not even out yet like the iPhone 4) would be much more fair and at the same price point. Really this hardware comparison should be between the Evo, Droid X, and iPhone 4. They are all coming out +/- 30 days of each other and at similar pricepoints.
Actually, if you buy it from AT&T, it's a $99 phone online or $129 in the stores if you're upgrading. Fortunately, I found letstalk.com where I was able to upgrade it for free.
The reason it's being brought up is that it's a brand spanking new smart phone that still runs Android 1.5 - so it's a good example of Android fragmentation. If you only want to consider high end Android phones, then feel free to only use the high end phones in your market numbers. That is, you can't consider only high end phones when talking about features and competition with the iPhone and then use ALL Android phones in your sales figures. Pick one position and stick with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
JRAGOSTA just "bought" one for his daughter. He says it is a good phone.
But he also thinks that the OS should be as advanced as the phones which cost money. IMO, with the mobile space changing so rapidly, it was a huge mistake to buy old tech.
No, I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy.
You want to brag about Android's great sales and how Android is overtaking the iPhone, but then when people point out the problems (fragmentation, lack of support, inability to upgrade the OS, etc), you say that only the high end Android phones should count and that I should be willing to live with an inferior phone just because it's not the phone YOU would have chosen.
Actually, if you buy it from AT&T, it's a $99 phone online or $129 in the stores if you're upgrading. Fortunately, I found letstalk.com where I was able to upgrade it for free.
The reason it's being brought up is that it's a brand spanking new smart phone that still runs Android 1.5 - so it's a good example of Android fragmentation.
You might want to check AT&T online, or maybe it's just my browser session, but it shows "FREE" after two-year new contract. But I guess that's for a refurbished. 79.99 for a "new" one.
Like I addressed in my post which you failed to acknowledge, the Backflip is a prime example of carrier control over OS. For the price-point, and feature set, like your daughter chose, Android 1.5 was everything she wanted. Is she upset that she won't be able to get Fro-Yo? Probably not. If you were looking for something to upgrade at that price-point, you wouldn't be getting a Backflip. It's like buying a netbook with Win7 starter or a Laptop with Win 7 pro. You knew what you were getting into up front. Not sure your argument explains fragmentation. Fragmentation to me is similar hardware running different versions of an OS (when not in the carrier's control).
You might want to check AT&T online, or maybe it's just my browser session, but it shows "FREE" after two-year new contract. But I guess that's for a refurbished. 79.99 for a "new" one.
I spent a great deal of time evaluating options and am quite aware of the pricing. "Free" is only for NEW activations. Upgrades pay the higher price I cited ($99.99 online and $129.99 in the store).
Quote:
Originally Posted by daving313
Like I addressed in my post which you failed to acknowledge, the Backflip is a prime example of carrier control over OS. For the price-point, and feature set, like your daughter chose, Android 1.5 was everything she wanted. Is she upset that she won't be able to get Fro-Yo? Probably not. If you were looking for something to upgrade at that price-point, you wouldn't be getting a Backflip. It's like buying a netbook with Win7 starter or a Laptop with Win 7 pro. You knew what you were getting into up front. Not sure your argument explains fragmentation. Fragmentation to me is similar hardware running different versions of an OS (when not in the carrier's control).
That's not the argument I made. My daughter is happy with her phone and doesn't have any need for an upgrade, at least at present. (However, your are incorrect in stating that I shouldn't expect upgradeability. The phone is listed as upgradeable and I therefore expect it to be upgradeable to use future features, fix security flaws, etc).
That doesn't change the fact that the Android market is grossly fragmented - to the point that it's meaningless to talk about the 'Android market'. Realistically, only a small fraction of Android phones are comparable to the iPhone.
Unfortunately, Android fans want to talk about ALL the Android phones (from the oldest and cheapest to the most advanced) when talking about sales figures, but as soon as you point out the deficiencies, they start with "but most of those phones don't count. You have to look at the Evo or the Droid or whatever their own pet phone is". You can't have it both ways - either Android phones can all be lumped together to compare to the iPHone or they need to be treated separately - with each separate phone being compared to the iPhone.
I like the analysis given in the article. What I find really interesting is how the situation that Google's Android OS faces is very much similar to some of the circumstances that Microsoft Windows OS faces. For example, Google only does the software (okay, with one somewhat minor, it seems at this point, exception, the Nexus ONE. Most of the Android operated phones are made by other manufacturers. Essentially Google's strategy has separated out the hardware from the software and some of the challenges that this strategy faces is exactly what Microsoft faced/faces with their Windows OS.
As Eringer points out, the hardware manufacturer can produce great hardware and if the software manufacturer does not produce software that makes use of the hardware to its fullest potential, all you get is "bragging rights" about the specs but no practical application to show for it.
This kind of situation is one that Windows has faced all along. Lots of bragging rights for specifications but when it comes down to actual pratical use, the bragging rights no longer hold up.
What does continues to irk me about a lot of technology commentators is how they see often see no further than simply the specifications and don't consider how in actuality those specifications hold up or are actualised in daily usage. For example, I think it was in the Huffington Post that one columnist wrote in that one of the "worst" things about iPhone 4 is that it doesn't have Flash. That criticism is shortsighted because it doesn't consider the circumstances and the context in which Flash is used. Flash does not run efficiently on mobile devices (and it struggles to run well on desktop or laptop devices!) so often we DON'T want Flash to be running. Yet, how often do we hear that because iPhone 4 doesn't have Flash as a spec that that is an egregious error on Apple's part.
Many technology columnists are so used to simply coparing specs without actually analysing more deeply how those specs pan out in real life. Why is that the case? A rather non-generous analysis from me would be that one reason is laziness. It's much easier to simply compare specs and make a pronouncement instead of actually looking at the specs and figuring out how it actually pans out in daily life before making a pronouncement. The former is easy to do and the latter is harder to do because it requires some knowledge and creative thinking of how people use technology and it is more difficult because there are a lot of contingencies that has to be considered before one can make a pronouncement.
None of what I'm describing here is new! Over the past decade, I see over and over again many technologists making the same lazy analysis that I described above.
For example, I think it was in the Huffington Post that one columnist wrote in that one of the "worst" things about iPhone 4 is that it doesn't have Flash. That criticism is shortsighted because it doesn't consider the circumstances and the context in which Flash is used. Flash does not run efficiently on mobile devices (and it struggles to run well on desktop or laptop devices!) so often we DON'T want Flash to be running. Yet, how often do we hear that because iPhone 4 doesn't have Flash as a spec that that is an egregious error on Apple's part..
If we're talking about daily usage, yes, it is nice to load up a restaurant's Flash website and menu when out and about in the city. One of the many conveniences of a capable smartphone.
Or maybe I simply believe in letting people choose the tools they will use - and always have. She does more texting than anything else and likes the layout of the backflip for texting. Her phone, her choice-your inane personal attacks aside.
Are you suggesting that it's important that OEMs make different products to cater to the different needs of different users?
You mean the iPhone was not actually a good fit for somebody you know?
I am surprised you admit it. I nearly fell out of my chair.
If we're talking about daily usage, yes, it is nice to load up a restaurant's Flash website and menu when out and about in the city. One of the many conveniences of a capable smartphone.
If I'm "out and about in the city" I'd much prefer speedy access to the information I'm after rather than an animated site that interferes with my ability to quickly obtain and assess information about what I'd like to do (other than play with my phone...).
If I'm "out and about in the city" I'd much prefer speedy access to the information I'm after rather than an animated site that interferes with my ability to quickly obtain and assess information about what I'd like to do (other than play with my phone...).
So if that information is in Flash format (as most local restaurants in Chicago are), I guess you're agreeing with me...? You must not have understood my point. Or are you suggesting restaurants and other small businesses with already slim margins should re-invest in a website overhaul so iPhones can view their content?
That doesn't change the fact that the Android market is grossly fragmented - to the point that it's meaningless to talk about the 'Android market'. Realistically, only a small fraction of Android phones are comparable to the iPhone.
And that fragmentation is getting less and less day-by-day. Over half of Android's installed based is now on 2.1. And more OEMs are rolling out upgrades as we speak.
In practical terms, your purchase just proved why fragmentation isn't as big a deal as Apple fanboys make it out to be. Having an older OS version did not stop you and your daughter from buying the phone. Just like how spec sheets don't sell phones to non-geeks, the same goes for concepts like fragmentation. OS versions are bullet points on a spec sheet. If it does all that somebody wants, they'll get the phone without looking at the OS version. You and your daughter just proved that point.
You proved exactly why people get Androids and why they'll spread in popularity. They offer people choice. That choice also fosters price competition. And the platform is solid and stable enough for most people who really don't care aren't the UI connoseurs that AI forumers make the average Joe out to be. And with each decision like yours, Android will grow. If a hard-core Apple fan can set aside all his hatred for all things Google and let a family member get an Android, just imagine the potential from the other families not led by Google-hating parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Unfortunately, Android fans want to talk about ALL the Android phones (from the oldest and cheapest to the most advanced) when talking about sales figures, but as soon as you point out the deficiencies, they start with "but most of those phones don't count. You have to look at the Evo or the Droid or whatever their own pet phone is". You can't have it both ways - either Android phones can all be lumped together to compare to the iPHone or they need to be treated separately - with each separate phone being compared to the iPhone.
Personally, I think the only thing that matters is the total installed base. That's what's going to drive developer resources to get the most and the best apps. I really could not care less about how that pie is split up between OS versions, tablets vs. phones, etc. What matters is the size of the pie. That's what benefits me directly.
So if that information is in Flash format (as most local restaurants in Chicago are), I guess you're agreeing with me...? You must not have understood my point. Or are you suggesting restaurants and other small businesses with already slim margins should re-invest in a website overhaul so iPhones can view their content?
No, sorry for any misunderstanding. It's the latter. Restaurants that wasted money on flash websites were already foolish for discriminating against those "out and about" people you're on about since Flash is only now beginning to become available for mobile devices.
I'll stick with businesses that provide the information I desire efficiently. If that means I miss out on those others then so be it. I block flash on my PCs and Macs and I miss nothing of worth.
One thing that many of you have failed to notice is that Google is a fifth columnist.
It has allowed the Android platform to be used as the springboard for Asian competitors to colonize the American tech marketplace. Look at the Android smartphones: Asian Android makers thump American Android players by miles. HTC's Evo leaves Google's Nexus One and Motorola Droid in the dust.
Asian players don't give a hoot about rhetorics such as "open" and "free choice" and they are happy that American players are tying their own hands and feet with such nonsense. They are getting a free lunch at the expense of American stupidity and naivety.
Asian competitors are learning fast and moving up the food chain while American players are content with the same mediocrity and lack of imagination. Soon another industry will be lost and Asian manufacturers will exact their pound of flesh from their former tormentor.
Your "logic" has a hole. The Google Nexus One is manufactured by HTC. So, the HTC EVO "thumps" the HTC Nexus One ... therefore the Asian companies are taking over?
I look at it from a different point of view. The 3 strongest mobile phone OSes (soon may be 4 largest if Windows Phone 7 proves to be decent) were created and are owned by American companies. Therefore, we are thumping them in the OS wars for mobile devices. And the OS drives the ad revenue, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that it's important that OEMs make different products to cater to the different needs of different users?
I never said otherwise. BUT if you choose to go that route, expect inconsistencies and problems to arise. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Android fans who want to claim every single Android phone ever sold when comparing to iPhone's sales numbers, but as soon as you start talking about features and performance, they only want to talk about the very best Android phone out there.
I'm simply saying that if you want to take the advantages of multiple vendors, you have to deal with the disadvantages, too. You can't take one without the other. Your inability to comprehend that simple concept says much more about you than about me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
You mean the iPhone was not actually a good fit for somebody you know?
I am surprised you admit it. I nearly fell out of my chair.
That's only because Apple-haters are incapable of understanding the position of fans of Apple products.
I have liked most of the Apple products I've purchased over the years - because they provide great functionality and usability. OTOH, I've purchased an enormous range of products from other vendors - including various PCs from Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc, cell phones from Motorola, Panteck, and Nokia, and so on. I am capable of evaluating the various options and choose the one that suits me best.
It's only the Apple haters who can't get past the idea of someone CHOOSING an Apple product who assume that it must be blind devotion or brainwashing or RDF. The blind fanaticism that you rave about exists only in your mind (and the minds of the other Apple-haters out there).
Once again, the same tired argument in a different wrapper.
How many millions of iPhones and satisfied users will it take when the iPhone4 comes out to prove to you (yet again) that your must-have items are irrelevant to the majority of users?
Most users never replaced their batteries. I'll take a bigger internal battery with more talk time over a smaller, thicker, removable battery with the flimsy battery covers.
HDMI?? Honesty... it's a phone.
FM Radio?? Geesh... what next, an LP player too?
Why you need removable batteries
1. Because, it is easier to reset the phone when it hangs (RIM, nokia etc..,).
2. Because, we can carry 1,000 batteries and never require to charge. Only need another phone as a battery charger. Also, it will overcome the problem that the battery only last for an hour (Samsung, LG etc..,)
Why you need a HDMI
1. Because, it's time for you to realize that if don't have a HDMI T.V then you don't deserve this phone.
2. Because, HDMI cables are cheaper than ethernet cables.
3. Because, we know that HDMI movie playback on a HDMI TV can run very easily on batteries of the size & capacity of the cell phones or smart phones.
It's only the Apple haters who can't get past the idea of someone CHOOSING an Apple product who assume that it must be blind devotion or brainwashing or RDF. The blind fanaticism that you rave about exists only in your mind (and the minds of the other Apple-haters out there).
Who's infected by the RDF is clear in my mind. I have a Mac at home. I am considering buying an iPad and I've owned an iPod or two. But I am the Apple hater for having an Android phone? Wow.
This what I personally dislike about most Apple fans: the smugness and the insistence that unless you swallow Jobs' load whole, you must be an Apple hater.
And by the way, I was referring to you specifically, not most of the Apple clan on here. You seem to be of a special breed of fanboy.
Who's infected by the RDF is clear in my mind. I have a Mac at home. I am considering buying an iPad and I've owned an iPod or two. But I am the Apple hater for having an Android phone? Wow.
This what I personally dislike about most Apple fans: the smugness and the insistence that unless you swallow Jobs' load whole, you must be an Apple hater.
And by the way, I was referring to you specifically, not most of the Apple clan on here. You seem to be of a special breed of fanboy.
Thanks for proving my point. You are not interested in rational discussion. You've made up your mind how other people think and refuse to listen to reality. That is classified as mental illness in most texts.
I never said otherwise. BUT if you choose to go that route, expect inconsistencies and problems to arise. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Android fans who want to claim every single Android phone ever sold when comparing to iPhone's sales numbers, but as soon as you start talking about features and performance, they only want to talk about the very best Android phone out there.
I'm simply saying that if you want to take the advantages of multiple vendors, you have to deal with the disadvantages, too. You can't take one without the other. Your inability to comprehend that simple concept says much more about you than about me.
Blah blah blah. Only fanboys talk like this.
Obviously discussions take place in context. If you are talking about what commands developers attention then the size of the installed base matters. And on this point, has anybody ever disputed that Apple is in the lead? Same for the context when talking hardware. Should you compare phones that are in the same price range and available at the same time? I have considered it unfair to compare the Nexus One to the iPhone 3GS...at least without explaining that the iPhone 3GS was 6 months old. I would argue the same is true when comparing the Nexus One to the iPhone 4.
Beyond that though, you seem to be insistent on painting me as a hypocrit. My post history is there for all to see. So I'll let others judge for themselves.
My crack at the OEM choice was a simple wisecrack directed at a die-hard Apple fan who would normally pooh-pooh choice. It was not intended as a comparative analysis on the paradigm differences between the fully integrated single OEM and the mulitple hardware/single software OEM models. If you had a sense of humour you'd get it. That you can't respond with wit or humour says more about you than me.
Comments
JRAGOSTA just "bought" one for his daughter. He says it is a good phone.
But he also thinks that the OS should be as advanced as the phones which cost money. IMO, with the mobile space changing so rapidly, it was a huge mistake to buy old tech.
If he got it for free, he can sell it on eBay and use the cash to get a Nexus One on the Google website.
Given how much of a die-hard Apple fan he is, I am surprised he let his daugther suffer the torment of using something not made by Apple. He obviously does not care about his kids. Good parents don't let their kids use Android.
Surprised he didn't give her his old iPhone and get himself a new one. I thought that's what all good Apple-loving parents do.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
With no multitasking and (IIRC) a locked-in app store, I have no interest in WinPhone 7.
I don't think even Google and the OHA have to worry about WinPho 7. There's no way the OEMs are going to put in a ton of effort on an OS that they have to pay to license vs. working on the platform Google licenses to them for free.
HTC might be the exception because they might need to work on WinPho 7 to keep that exemption they got from MS patent suits.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
Har! Good one
I don't think even Google and the OHA have to worry about WinPho 7. There's no way the OEMs are going to put in a ton of effort on an OS that they have to pay to license vs. working on the platform Google licenses to them for free.
.
Lots of people predict that it will quickly become popular, perhaps with RIM switchers in the enterprise.
I have no real opinion or interest.
Given how much of a die-hard Apple fan he is, I am surprised he let his daugther suffer the torment of using something not made by Apple. He obviously does not care about his kids. Good parents don't let their kids use Android.
Surprised he didn't give her his old iPhone and get himself a new one. I thought that's what all good Apple-loving parents do.
I am wondering if this is just a play to convince his daughter not to stray too far from the Apple flock. Buy her a crap Android device, so that she learns how bad the world outside really is. Genius. She'll never buy anything not Apple again!
Or maybe I simply believe in letting people choose the tools they will use - and always have. She does more texting than anything else and likes the layout of the backflip for texting. Her phone, her choice-your inane personal attacks aside.
Given that "fact", how do you explain Android's explosive market growth? All sold to the identified subset of geeks? I don't think that there are very many of those, and I think you agree with that.
So given that there are very few "my phone has more features than your phone" geeks out there, how are Android phones selling so fast?
In the case of Sprint, they got fantastic growth by lying about their sales figures.
As for the rest, there are a number of explanations:
1. BOGO has contributed a good number, along with very aggressive pricing for non-BOGO phones.
2. There was a pent-up demand. There are a lot of Apple haters who simply would never buy an Apple product no matter what and they finally have a decent selection of phones to choose from, so it's not surprising that there would be a surge.
3. The entire concept of "Android phones" vs. "iPhones" is misleading. That's like saying "all Korean cars added together outsold Honda so Honda is a fail". If you want to lump sales by OS, add in the iPod Touch, as well.
4. Android has been hyped as an 'iphone killer' for so long that some people are believing it with no justification. A lot of those Android phones have disappointed owners - and so share growth will taper off. iPhone, OTOH, continues to be the leader in customer satisfaction by a wide margin - which leads to repeat customers.
Why did she get that phone when the Nexus One is available for ATT?
The Backflip is not a phone I would expect much from. It got lousy reviews, and it is sold with an old OS.
But it is cheap, and my guess is that in the budget category, pepole care less about having the absolute state of the art. Their intent is to compromise, and not to get the latest and greatest.
Actually, the Backflip's reviews weren't that bad and most of the complaints aren't things she cares about. It was also priced aggressively.
Why do people even bring up the Backflip? The phone is free with a new 2-year contract. You can even get the Droid for free after a new contract on Wirefly. The cheapest iPhone is an 8GB 3G refurb for 49.99 (hardware which is 2 years old).
I think comparing to the Droid X hardware (since it's not even out yet like the iPhone 4) would be much more fair and at the same price point. Really this hardware comparison should be between the Evo, Droid X, and iPhone 4. They are all coming out +/- 30 days of each other and at similar pricepoints.
Actually, if you buy it from AT&T, it's a $99 phone online or $129 in the stores if you're upgrading. Fortunately, I found letstalk.com where I was able to upgrade it for free.
The reason it's being brought up is that it's a brand spanking new smart phone that still runs Android 1.5 - so it's a good example of Android fragmentation. If you only want to consider high end Android phones, then feel free to only use the high end phones in your market numbers. That is, you can't consider only high end phones when talking about features and competition with the iPhone and then use ALL Android phones in your sales figures. Pick one position and stick with it.
JRAGOSTA just "bought" one for his daughter. He says it is a good phone.
But he also thinks that the OS should be as advanced as the phones which cost money. IMO, with the mobile space changing so rapidly, it was a huge mistake to buy old tech.
No, I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy.
You want to brag about Android's great sales and how Android is overtaking the iPhone, but then when people point out the problems (fragmentation, lack of support, inability to upgrade the OS, etc), you say that only the high end Android phones should count and that I should be willing to live with an inferior phone just because it's not the phone YOU would have chosen.
Actually, if you buy it from AT&T, it's a $99 phone online or $129 in the stores if you're upgrading. Fortunately, I found letstalk.com where I was able to upgrade it for free.
The reason it's being brought up is that it's a brand spanking new smart phone that still runs Android 1.5 - so it's a good example of Android fragmentation.
You might want to check AT&T online, or maybe it's just my browser session, but it shows "FREE" after two-year new contract. But I guess that's for a refurbished. 79.99 for a "new" one.
Like I addressed in my post which you failed to acknowledge, the Backflip is a prime example of carrier control over OS. For the price-point, and feature set, like your daughter chose, Android 1.5 was everything she wanted. Is she upset that she won't be able to get Fro-Yo? Probably not. If you were looking for something to upgrade at that price-point, you wouldn't be getting a Backflip. It's like buying a netbook with Win7 starter or a Laptop with Win 7 pro. You knew what you were getting into up front. Not sure your argument explains fragmentation. Fragmentation to me is similar hardware running different versions of an OS (when not in the carrier's control).
You might want to check AT&T online, or maybe it's just my browser session, but it shows "FREE" after two-year new contract. But I guess that's for a refurbished. 79.99 for a "new" one.
I spent a great deal of time evaluating options and am quite aware of the pricing. "Free" is only for NEW activations. Upgrades pay the higher price I cited ($99.99 online and $129.99 in the store).
Like I addressed in my post which you failed to acknowledge, the Backflip is a prime example of carrier control over OS. For the price-point, and feature set, like your daughter chose, Android 1.5 was everything she wanted. Is she upset that she won't be able to get Fro-Yo? Probably not. If you were looking for something to upgrade at that price-point, you wouldn't be getting a Backflip. It's like buying a netbook with Win7 starter or a Laptop with Win 7 pro. You knew what you were getting into up front. Not sure your argument explains fragmentation. Fragmentation to me is similar hardware running different versions of an OS (when not in the carrier's control).
That's not the argument I made. My daughter is happy with her phone and doesn't have any need for an upgrade, at least at present. (However, your are incorrect in stating that I shouldn't expect upgradeability. The phone is listed as upgradeable and I therefore expect it to be upgradeable to use future features, fix security flaws, etc).
That doesn't change the fact that the Android market is grossly fragmented - to the point that it's meaningless to talk about the 'Android market'. Realistically, only a small fraction of Android phones are comparable to the iPhone.
Unfortunately, Android fans want to talk about ALL the Android phones (from the oldest and cheapest to the most advanced) when talking about sales figures, but as soon as you point out the deficiencies, they start with "but most of those phones don't count. You have to look at the Evo or the Droid or whatever their own pet phone is". You can't have it both ways - either Android phones can all be lumped together to compare to the iPHone or they need to be treated separately - with each separate phone being compared to the iPhone.
As Eringer points out, the hardware manufacturer can produce great hardware and if the software manufacturer does not produce software that makes use of the hardware to its fullest potential, all you get is "bragging rights" about the specs but no practical application to show for it.
This kind of situation is one that Windows has faced all along. Lots of bragging rights for specifications but when it comes down to actual pratical use, the bragging rights no longer hold up.
What does continues to irk me about a lot of technology commentators is how they see often see no further than simply the specifications and don't consider how in actuality those specifications hold up or are actualised in daily usage. For example, I think it was in the Huffington Post that one columnist wrote in that one of the "worst" things about iPhone 4 is that it doesn't have Flash. That criticism is shortsighted because it doesn't consider the circumstances and the context in which Flash is used. Flash does not run efficiently on mobile devices (and it struggles to run well on desktop or laptop devices!) so often we DON'T want Flash to be running. Yet, how often do we hear that because iPhone 4 doesn't have Flash as a spec that that is an egregious error on Apple's part.
Many technology columnists are so used to simply coparing specs without actually analysing more deeply how those specs pan out in real life. Why is that the case? A rather non-generous analysis from me would be that one reason is laziness. It's much easier to simply compare specs and make a pronouncement instead of actually looking at the specs and figuring out how it actually pans out in daily life before making a pronouncement. The former is easy to do and the latter is harder to do because it requires some knowledge and creative thinking of how people use technology and it is more difficult because there are a lot of contingencies that has to be considered before one can make a pronouncement.
None of what I'm describing here is new! Over the past decade, I see over and over again many technologists making the same lazy analysis that I described above.
For example, I think it was in the Huffington Post that one columnist wrote in that one of the "worst" things about iPhone 4 is that it doesn't have Flash. That criticism is shortsighted because it doesn't consider the circumstances and the context in which Flash is used. Flash does not run efficiently on mobile devices (and it struggles to run well on desktop or laptop devices!) so often we DON'T want Flash to be running. Yet, how often do we hear that because iPhone 4 doesn't have Flash as a spec that that is an egregious error on Apple's part..
If we're talking about daily usage, yes, it is nice to load up a restaurant's Flash website and menu when out and about in the city. One of the many conveniences of a capable smartphone.
Or maybe I simply believe in letting people choose the tools they will use - and always have. She does more texting than anything else and likes the layout of the backflip for texting. Her phone, her choice-your inane personal attacks aside.
Are you suggesting that it's important that OEMs make different products to cater to the different needs of different users?
You mean the iPhone was not actually a good fit for somebody you know?
I am surprised you admit it. I nearly fell out of my chair.
If we're talking about daily usage, yes, it is nice to load up a restaurant's Flash website and menu when out and about in the city. One of the many conveniences of a capable smartphone.
If I'm "out and about in the city" I'd much prefer speedy access to the information I'm after rather than an animated site that interferes with my ability to quickly obtain and assess information about what I'd like to do (other than play with my phone...).
If I'm "out and about in the city" I'd much prefer speedy access to the information I'm after rather than an animated site that interferes with my ability to quickly obtain and assess information about what I'd like to do (other than play with my phone...).
So if that information is in Flash format (as most local restaurants in Chicago are), I guess you're agreeing with me...? You must not have understood my point. Or are you suggesting restaurants and other small businesses with already slim margins should re-invest in a website overhaul so iPhones can view their content?
That doesn't change the fact that the Android market is grossly fragmented - to the point that it's meaningless to talk about the 'Android market'. Realistically, only a small fraction of Android phones are comparable to the iPhone.
And that fragmentation is getting less and less day-by-day. Over half of Android's installed based is now on 2.1. And more OEMs are rolling out upgrades as we speak.
In practical terms, your purchase just proved why fragmentation isn't as big a deal as Apple fanboys make it out to be. Having an older OS version did not stop you and your daughter from buying the phone. Just like how spec sheets don't sell phones to non-geeks, the same goes for concepts like fragmentation. OS versions are bullet points on a spec sheet. If it does all that somebody wants, they'll get the phone without looking at the OS version. You and your daughter just proved that point.
You proved exactly why people get Androids and why they'll spread in popularity. They offer people choice. That choice also fosters price competition. And the platform is solid and stable enough for most people who really don't care aren't the UI connoseurs that AI forumers make the average Joe out to be. And with each decision like yours, Android will grow. If a hard-core Apple fan can set aside all his hatred for all things Google and let a family member get an Android, just imagine the potential from the other families not led by Google-hating parents.
Unfortunately, Android fans want to talk about ALL the Android phones (from the oldest and cheapest to the most advanced) when talking about sales figures, but as soon as you point out the deficiencies, they start with "but most of those phones don't count. You have to look at the Evo or the Droid or whatever their own pet phone is". You can't have it both ways - either Android phones can all be lumped together to compare to the iPHone or they need to be treated separately - with each separate phone being compared to the iPhone.
Personally, I think the only thing that matters is the total installed base. That's what's going to drive developer resources to get the most and the best apps. I really could not care less about how that pie is split up between OS versions, tablets vs. phones, etc. What matters is the size of the pie. That's what benefits me directly.
So if that information is in Flash format (as most local restaurants in Chicago are), I guess you're agreeing with me...? You must not have understood my point. Or are you suggesting restaurants and other small businesses with already slim margins should re-invest in a website overhaul so iPhones can view their content?
No, sorry for any misunderstanding. It's the latter. Restaurants that wasted money on flash websites were already foolish for discriminating against those "out and about" people you're on about since Flash is only now beginning to become available for mobile devices.
I'll stick with businesses that provide the information I desire efficiently. If that means I miss out on those others then so be it. I block flash on my PCs and Macs and I miss nothing of worth.
One thing that many of you have failed to notice is that Google is a fifth columnist.
It has allowed the Android platform to be used as the springboard for Asian competitors to colonize the American tech marketplace. Look at the Android smartphones: Asian Android makers thump American Android players by miles. HTC's Evo leaves Google's Nexus One and Motorola Droid in the dust.
Asian players don't give a hoot about rhetorics such as "open" and "free choice" and they are happy that American players are tying their own hands and feet with such nonsense. They are getting a free lunch at the expense of American stupidity and naivety.
Asian competitors are learning fast and moving up the food chain while American players are content with the same mediocrity and lack of imagination. Soon another industry will be lost and Asian manufacturers will exact their pound of flesh from their former tormentor.
Your "logic" has a hole. The Google Nexus One is manufactured by HTC. So, the HTC EVO "thumps" the HTC Nexus One ... therefore the Asian companies are taking over?
I look at it from a different point of view. The 3 strongest mobile phone OSes (soon may be 4 largest if Windows Phone 7 proves to be decent) were created and are owned by American companies. Therefore, we are thumping them in the OS wars for mobile devices. And the OS drives the ad revenue, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that it's important that OEMs make different products to cater to the different needs of different users?
I never said otherwise. BUT if you choose to go that route, expect inconsistencies and problems to arise. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Android fans who want to claim every single Android phone ever sold when comparing to iPhone's sales numbers, but as soon as you start talking about features and performance, they only want to talk about the very best Android phone out there.
I'm simply saying that if you want to take the advantages of multiple vendors, you have to deal with the disadvantages, too. You can't take one without the other. Your inability to comprehend that simple concept says much more about you than about me.
You mean the iPhone was not actually a good fit for somebody you know?
I am surprised you admit it. I nearly fell out of my chair.
That's only because Apple-haters are incapable of understanding the position of fans of Apple products.
I have liked most of the Apple products I've purchased over the years - because they provide great functionality and usability. OTOH, I've purchased an enormous range of products from other vendors - including various PCs from Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc, cell phones from Motorola, Panteck, and Nokia, and so on. I am capable of evaluating the various options and choose the one that suits me best.
It's only the Apple haters who can't get past the idea of someone CHOOSING an Apple product who assume that it must be blind devotion or brainwashing or RDF. The blind fanaticism that you rave about exists only in your mind (and the minds of the other Apple-haters out there).
Once again, the same tired argument in a different wrapper.
How many millions of iPhones and satisfied users will it take when the iPhone4 comes out to prove to you (yet again) that your must-have items are irrelevant to the majority of users?
Most users never replaced their batteries. I'll take a bigger internal battery with more talk time over a smaller, thicker, removable battery with the flimsy battery covers.
HDMI?? Honesty... it's a phone.
FM Radio?? Geesh... what next, an LP player too?
Why you need removable batteries
1. Because, it is easier to reset the phone when it hangs (RIM, nokia etc..,).
2. Because, we can carry 1,000 batteries and never require to charge. Only need another phone as a battery charger. Also, it will overcome the problem that the battery only last for an hour (Samsung, LG etc..,)
Why you need a HDMI
1. Because, it's time for you to realize that if don't have a HDMI T.V then you don't deserve this phone.
2. Because, HDMI cables are cheaper than ethernet cables.
3. Because, we know that HDMI movie playback on a HDMI TV can run very easily on batteries of the size & capacity of the cell phones or smart phones.
It's only the Apple haters who can't get past the idea of someone CHOOSING an Apple product who assume that it must be blind devotion or brainwashing or RDF. The blind fanaticism that you rave about exists only in your mind (and the minds of the other Apple-haters out there).
Who's infected by the RDF is clear in my mind. I have a Mac at home. I am considering buying an iPad and I've owned an iPod or two. But I am the Apple hater for having an Android phone? Wow.
This what I personally dislike about most Apple fans: the smugness and the insistence that unless you swallow Jobs' load whole, you must be an Apple hater.
And by the way, I was referring to you specifically, not most of the Apple clan on here. You seem to be of a special breed of fanboy.
Who's infected by the RDF is clear in my mind. I have a Mac at home. I am considering buying an iPad and I've owned an iPod or two. But I am the Apple hater for having an Android phone? Wow.
This what I personally dislike about most Apple fans: the smugness and the insistence that unless you swallow Jobs' load whole, you must be an Apple hater.
And by the way, I was referring to you specifically, not most of the Apple clan on here. You seem to be of a special breed of fanboy.
Thanks for proving my point. You are not interested in rational discussion. You've made up your mind how other people think and refuse to listen to reality. That is classified as mental illness in most texts.
I never said otherwise. BUT if you choose to go that route, expect inconsistencies and problems to arise. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Android fans who want to claim every single Android phone ever sold when comparing to iPhone's sales numbers, but as soon as you start talking about features and performance, they only want to talk about the very best Android phone out there.
I'm simply saying that if you want to take the advantages of multiple vendors, you have to deal with the disadvantages, too. You can't take one without the other. Your inability to comprehend that simple concept says much more about you than about me.
Blah blah blah. Only fanboys talk like this.
Obviously discussions take place in context. If you are talking about what commands developers attention then the size of the installed base matters. And on this point, has anybody ever disputed that Apple is in the lead? Same for the context when talking hardware. Should you compare phones that are in the same price range and available at the same time? I have considered it unfair to compare the Nexus One to the iPhone 3GS...at least without explaining that the iPhone 3GS was 6 months old. I would argue the same is true when comparing the Nexus One to the iPhone 4.
Beyond that though, you seem to be insistent on painting me as a hypocrit. My post history is there for all to see. So I'll let others judge for themselves.
My crack at the OEM choice was a simple wisecrack directed at a die-hard Apple fan who would normally pooh-pooh choice. It was not intended as a comparative analysis on the paradigm differences between the fully integrated single OEM and the mulitple hardware/single software OEM models. If you had a sense of humour you'd get it. That you can't respond with wit or humour says more about you than me.